class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide # Electoral benefits for pro-climate parties and<br>candidates in the wake of extreme weather events ## Workshop presentation<br>Göteborg<br><a href="https://soerendamsbo.github.io/misc-slides/goteborg2022.html">soerendamsbo.github.io/<br>misc-slides/goteborg2022.html</a> ### Søren Damsbo-Svendsen<br><a href="https://soerendamsbo.github.io">soerendamsbo.github.io</a><br>PhD fellow ### Department of Political Science<br>University of Copenhagen ### June 2022 --- background-image: url(data:image/png;base64,#media/bodil.png) background-size: cover .right[.grey[Image by Jeanne and John Bollerup-Jensen]] --- class: middle <img src="data:image/png;base64,#media/flooding_map_total.png" width="70%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- # A rarely harmful extreme weather event in Denmark - 2013 __storm surge__ after 'Bodil' -- - Detailed, case-level **storm surge insurance data** (Danish Storm Council) -- - Flooding measured at the level of __1,386 polling districts__ -- - 3 treatment definitions (dummies): 1. **Rehousing:** 1+ cases of rehoused residents 2. **Damage:** storm surge damage (DKK) above avg. in affected areas 3. **Flooding:** 1+ storm surge cases -- - Matched with **main outcome:** _district vote share for pro-climate parties_ (1994-2019) -- - Difference-in-differences (DID) design -- *** > __RQ: How does an extreme, costly flood event affect electoral support for pro-climate parties and candidates?__ --- # Theory - Ample evidence that __extreme weather experiences can affect climate change perceptions and attitudes__ -- - But limited evidence that weather experiences affect __actual behavior__ &mdash; environmental or political -- - Several studies exist, but they are framed in a different way &darr; -- - __natural disasters__ &rarr; __electoral behavior__ - __retrospective voting:__ rewarding or punishing incumbents based on how they handled the event - still mixed results: sometimes punishment, sometimes reward -- - What if it's more about **policy:** - voters updating preferences on climate adaptation and mitigation<br>(and/or parties and candidates adopting pro-climate policies to attract voters) - some evidence: e.g., "a sizeable effect for pro-climate voting after experiencing a flood" (Baccini & Leemann, 2021) ??? Baccini, L., & Leemann, L. (2021). Do natural disasters help the environment? How voters respond and what that means. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(3), 468–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.25 --- # Parallel trends: outcome evolution <img src="data:image/png;base64,#media/parallel_trends_plot_main.png" width="90%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ??? <img src="data:image/png;base64,#media/parallel_trends_plot_all.png" width="3600" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- # Parallel trends: pre-treatment balance <img src="data:image/png;base64,#media/balance_density.png" width="50%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- # Results: DID estimates <img src="data:image/png;base64,#media/did_estimates_2x2.png" width="3200" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ??? <img src="data:image/png;base64,#media/did_estimates_intensity.png" width="4000" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- # Results: event study plots (placebo) <img src="data:image/png;base64,#media/did_estimates_eventstudy.png" width="85%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- class: middle # Part II: support for pro-climate candidates --- # Part II: candidate data from 2017 local elections -- *Key variables:* - (1) *Outcome:* **being elected (binary)** in 2017, 2013 (and 2009) -- - (2) Running in a **treated municipality (binary)** w/ 10+ rehousing cases -- - (3) Running on a **pro-climate platform (binary)** w/ climate as key issue or high climate score *** -- > __RQ: Are pro-climate candidates rewarded more (punished less) by flooding in affected areas?__ -- _Triple differences (DIDID):_<br> .center[&rarr; we should expect **a positive difference in DID estimates** for pro-climate vs. non-climate candidates] --- # Results: DIDID estimate <img src="data:image/png;base64,#media/did_estimates_2x2_candidates_table.png" width="75%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- # Results: DIDID estimate <br> .pull-left[ <img src="data:image/png;base64,#media/did_estimates_2x2_candidates_table.png" width="75%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ] .pull-right[ - &rarr; approx. 6 percentage points difference (DIDID) - pro-climate candidates benefit in post-flooding elections - not yet clear if the voters change preferences or candidates change policy ] --- # Results: DIDID placebo <img src="data:image/png;base64,#media/did_estimates_2x2_candidates.png" width="90%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- # Conclusion > __RQ: How does an extreme, costly flood event affect electoral support for pro-climate parties and candidates?__ -- - __Case:__ Denmark, 2013 storm surge 'Bodil' and surrounding elections -- - __Data:__ Detailed flooding damages and vote shares for parties and candidates -- - __DID design__ -- - __Results:__ - Pro-climate (left-green) parties gain at least 1.5 pp - Pro-climate candidates see their election chances increase by 6 pp vs. non-climate candidates -- <br><br> Still plenty of black boxes and additional analysis and interpretation to do ... --- class: title-slide, middle, center # Thank you! &rarr; sdas@ifs.ku.dk <img src="data:image/png;base64,#media/banksy.jpg" width="45%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> .grey[Banksy (image by Zak Hussein<br>/ PA Images via Getty Images)]